JUDGMENT 1. - Since these three appeals by the accused persons are directed against one and the same judgment of the Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur dated June 13, 1988, they were heard together and are disposed off by a common judgment. By the impugned judgment, accused (I) Har Narain (2) Ram Narain (3) Ratm Lal (4) Kishore (5) Hazari (6) Badri (7) Satya Narain (8) Sheoji (9) Kana (10) Ramji Lal and (11) Nathu were convicted under sections 302/149, 148, 324, 324/149, 323 and 323/149. I. P. C. and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302/149 and to various terms of imprisonment under the remaining sections. Accused Harnarayan was further convicted under section 302 I P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life Sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused have come up in appeals and challenge their convictions. 2. Put briefly, the prosecution is as follows: The appellants are the residents of village Didwari P.S. Bonli District Sawai Madhopur. Out of them Ramji Lai & Nathu, are Mali and the remaining nine are Aheer by caste. The two deceased Kalyan aged about 60 years and Kishtoora aged about 45 years were also Aheer by caste and residents of the same village. Relations between the deceased victims and the accused persons belonging to Aheer caste got estranged due to disputes over the well, fields and water. Civil and Criminal litigation ensued between them. The police had submitted a challan against the deceased victim:. Kalyan and Kishtoora and 10 others in the court of a Judicial Magistrate on 21.11.84 for offences under sections 147, 447, 379, 427 etc. of the Penal Code. Before a few days of the incident, the police submitted a challan against the two deceased victims and 14 others in the court of a Judicial Magistrate for off pees under sections 307, 326, 148 etc. of the Penal Code. These cases were pending trial. 3. It is alleged that the 'GONA' ceremony of the daughters of the deceased Kishtoori Aheer was to take place on 28.5.1985. He therefore, had to make some purchases. The two deceased Kishtoora and Kalyan accompanied with P W. 6 Hazari Mali and P.W 6 Sri Narain Aheer went in a bullock cart from their village Didwari to Bonli. 3. It is alleged that the 'GONA' ceremony of the daughters of the deceased Kishtoori Aheer was to take place on 28.5.1985. He therefore, had to make some purchases. The two deceased Kishtoora and Kalyan accompanied with P W. 6 Hazari Mali and P.W 6 Sri Narain Aheer went in a bullock cart from their village Didwari to Bonli. After making the purchases, all of them were returning together at about 6.00 P.M. When they reached the field of Mozi Ram (P.W.1), through which passes the cart way the 11 accused persons suddenly emerged out of the 'Gonhi' (bullocks treading place) of the well. Accused Har Narayan, Kishore, Badri and Ramjilal had Kulhadies (axes), accused Ram Narayan had a 'Jelli' and the remaining seven had Lathies. Accused Har Narayan gave a 'Lalkara' to kill them all. They obstructed bullock cart and did not allow it proceed further. Apprehending danger to their lives, Kishtoora and Kalyan left the bullock cart and started running for safety. Accused Ramjilal struck a blow of his axe on the left leg of Kishtoora, Accused Har Narayan, Ram Lai, Hazari and others struck blows to Kalyan with their weapons. Kalyan fell down with profuse bleeding from his wounds. The culprits thereafter over-powered Kishtoora and struck blows to him with their weapons. When P.W. 8 Sri Narayan tried to intervene, he too was not spared. He was also assaulted and belaboured by the accused persons. Kishtoora succumbed to the injuries and passed away instantaneously on the spot. P.W. 7 Girdhari and P.W.11 Laddu who are also residents of village Didwari were coming together on a bicycle and they saw the incident. The injured and the dead were taken in a bullock cast to Govt. Dispensary, Bonil. P.W. 6 Hazari and P.W. 7 Girdhari went to Police Station Bonli and presented written report Ex. P. 21 of the incident at about 11.30 P.M. Kalyan was admitted in the Dispensary for medical treatment and next day when he was being taken in a Jeep car to Jaipur for treatment, he passed away in the way. The police registered it case and proceeded with the investigation. The Station House Officer Ramhet Singh P.W. 10 arrived on the spot and prepared the site plan alongwith the site inspection note. He prepared the inquests of the dead bodies of Kalyan and Kishtoori. The police registered it case and proceeded with the investigation. The Station House Officer Ramhet Singh P.W. 10 arrived on the spot and prepared the site plan alongwith the site inspection note. He prepared the inquests of the dead bodies of Kalyan and Kishtoori. He found blood stained earth on the spot which he seized and sealed. The investigating officer found the broken piece of it Jelly on the site which he also seized and sealed. The medical legal autopsy of the dead bodies of Kishtoori and Kalyan was conducted on 29-5-85 by P.W. 4 Dr. Rajendra Jain the then Medical Officer incharge P.H.C Bonli. Dr. Jain noticed the following ante mortem injuries over the dead body of Kalyan:- 'External: 1. The stitched wound with depressed fracture of underlying bone 2"X 1/2"X4" on left side of anterio part of scalp anterio to parietal emanance. 2. Stitched lacerated wound 1"Xl/2"XI/2" on face material to nose on left side. 3. Abrasion 3/4"X 1/4" on face about 1/4" laterial to injury No. 2. 4. Lacerated wound 3/4"X I /4"X 1 /4" on medial surface of left fore arm in middle. 5. Lacerated wound 3/4"X1/4"X1/4" on posterior surface on left forearm in middle. 6. Abrasion 1/4"X⅕" on posterior surface of left fore arm about 2" above wrist joint. 7. Swelling 21/2"X2" area on dorsum of left hand. 8. Incised wound 1/2"X 1/4"X 1/4" on anterior lateral surface on meta carpo phalangeal. 9. Lacerated wound bleeding 1/10"X 1/10"X 1/4" deep on posterior surface on right leg-upper part. 10. Contusion 2"X1" on posterior surface of right fore arm in middle. 11. Swelling feeling painful movement and tanderness loccally ondorsum of right hand on lateral part. 12. Lacerated wound 2"X1/2X 1/2" on anterior surface of left knee joint. 13. Incised wound 1 "X 1/4"X 1/4" on anterial surface of right leg about 2" elbow knee. 14. Lacerated wound 1/2"X⅕"X⅕" on anterial surface of right leg in upper part. 15. Multiple abrasion of various sizes on anterior surface of right leg. Internal Depressed fracture of left parietal and frontle bone of skull piercing brain matter causing injury of brain tissue." 4. The Doctor was of the opinion that the death was due to fracture, injury of left parietal and frontle bone, brain tissue was damaged leading to death'. He prepared a post mortem report Ex. P. 6. 5. Dr. Internal Depressed fracture of left parietal and frontle bone of skull piercing brain matter causing injury of brain tissue." 4. The Doctor was of the opinion that the death was due to fracture, injury of left parietal and frontle bone, brain tissue was damaged leading to death'. He prepared a post mortem report Ex. P. 6. 5. Dr. Jain further stated that he noticed the following ante mortem injuries over the dead body of Kishtoora :External 1. Incised wound 1/2"X1/4"X1/2" on laterial surface of left elbow joint. 2. Swelling and haemotoma 2"X11/2" on dorsum of left hand. 3. Lacerated wound 1 "X1/2"XRs (sic) on laterial surface of left leg about 1" above laterial melleolus. 4. Lacerated wound 1"X1/2"X1/2" above injury No. 3 of left leg. 5. Lacerated wound 2"X1/2"X1/2" bald inch above injury No. 4 on left leg. 6. Contusion 3"XI" on left chest about 3" below scapulla. 7. Contusion 2 1/4"X3/4" on right side of chest back below scapulla. 8. Contusion obliquely on right side of chest about 2" below above injury No. 7 though mistakenly it was mentioned by Doctor injury No. 8. 9. Swelling irregularity of bone and depression in bone area, there was fracture of vertebrae 2-1/2"X2" on middle of neck on poterior surface. Internal Complete fracture and dislocation of fifth and sixth cervical vertebrae with crushing of inter-vertebral disc piercing spinal card.' 6. In the opinion of Dr. Jain, the cause of death of Kishtoora was spinal shock due to injury of spinal cord. The Doctor prepared the post mortem report Ex. P. 8. Dr. Jain also examined the injuries on the person of Sri Narayan (P.W.8) and found four injuries as mentioned by him in injury report Ex. P. 9. 7. The accused persons were rounded up and in consequence of the informations furnished by them lathies and axes were recovered at their instance. Human blood was found on the clothes of the deceased victims when they were examined in S.F.S.L. Jaipur. After when the investigation was over, the police submitted a crime report against all the 11 accused persons in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (2) Sawai Madhopur who in his turn committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions. After when the investigation was over, the police submitted a crime report against all the 11 accused persons in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (2) Sawai Madhopur who in his turn committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 147, 148, 342, 323, 324, 302 simplicitor and also with the aid of section 149 I.P.C. against all of them, to which they pleaded not guilty and faced trial. Each of them pleaded Alibi and denied his presence on the spot. According to them they have been falsely involved and implicated owing to long standing enmity between them and the members of the complainant party. In support of its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused examined four witnesses. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the charges duly brought home to the accused and found no substance in their defence. The accused (all the 11) were consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. Aggrieved against their convictions, the accused have taken these appeals. 8. We have heard Mr. Biri Singh, Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar and Mr. S. L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor Mrs. Kamla Jain assisted by Mr. N.K. Jain learned counsel for the complainant. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 9. It may be pointed out before proceeding further that the learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the opinion of P.W. 4 Dr. Jain, relating to the cause of death of the two victims Kalyan and Kishtoora and the number and nature of injuries found on the person of P.W 8 Sri Narayan. We, therefore need not discuss the testimony of P.W. 4 Dr. Jain Dr. Jain stated that injury No. 1 alone of Kalyan and injury No. 9 of Kishtoora were individually and themselves sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The deaths of Kalyan and Kishtoora were thus not natural but homicidal. 10. In order to bring the charges at the door-steps of the accused the prosecution has examined five ocular witnesses viz. P.W. 1 Moza Ram, P.W. 6 Hazari. P.W. 7 Girdhari, P.W. 8 Sri Narayana and P.W. 11 Laddu, each of whom has claimed to have seen the incident. 10. In order to bring the charges at the door-steps of the accused the prosecution has examined five ocular witnesses viz. P.W. 1 Moza Ram, P.W. 6 Hazari. P.W. 7 Girdhari, P.W. 8 Sri Narayana and P.W. 11 Laddu, each of whom has claimed to have seen the incident. The names of all the parsons have been mentioned in the first information report Ex. P. 21. Out of them P.W 8 Sri Narayan is an injured witness who according to him sustained injuries in this incident. P.W. 6 Hazari and P.W. 8 Sri Narayan were coming with the two deceased Kalyan and Kishtoora in their bullock cart. P.W. 1 Moza Ram is the person in whose field the incident had taken place. P.W. 7 Girdhari and P.W. 11 Laddu were coming together on a bicycle on their way from Bonli to village Didwari. P.W.1 Mozi Ram lent no support to the prosecution case and refused to have seen the incident. He was declared hostile. The remaining four witnesses lent full support to the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge found the evidence of Y.W. 6 Hazari. P.W. 7 Girdhari, P.W. 8 Sri Narayan and P.W. 11 Laddu reliable and dependable, sufficient to base the conviction of the appellants. 11. In impeaching the conviction of the appellants, the first ground urged by their learned counsel is that P.W. 1 Mozi Ram lent no support to the prosecution. P.W. 7 Girdhri, P.W. 8 Sri Narayan and P.W. 11 Laddu are the close relatives of the deceased victim,. Y.W. Hazari was a purchased witness. They were all chance witnesses who had no reason to be present of the spot. Since the relations between the deceased victims and the appellants belonging to Aheer community were beaten, these four eye witnesses have falsely involved and implicated the appellants. It was on the other hand contended by the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Jain that P W. 8 Sri Narayan is an injured person. his presence on the spot is, therefore, not open to any doubt. The F.I.R. Ex. P. 21 was lodged by P.W. 6 Hazari himself. The name of Girdhari P.W. 7 has been mentioned in F.I R. Ex. P. 21. The F.I R. Ex P. 21 was scribed by P.W. 7 Girdhari. These four witnesses have described the incident in details. Their presence on the spat is not open to any suspicion. The F.I.R. Ex. P. 21 was lodged by P.W. 6 Hazari himself. The name of Girdhari P.W. 7 has been mentioned in F.I R. Ex. P. 21. The F.I R. Ex P. 21 was scribed by P.W. 7 Girdhari. These four witnesses have described the incident in details. Their presence on the spat is not open to any suspicion. The court below was perfectly justified in putting reliance on what has been stated by these four witnesses. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 12. It is true that P.W.7 Girdhari, P. W. 11 Ladhu and P.W. 8 Sri Narayan are relatives of the deceased victims. The deceased victims Kishtoora and Kalyan were, their uncles. But that is no reason to disbelieve what they testified on oath. The testimony of a witness cannot be discarded or brushed aside only on the ground of his close relationship with the deceased victim. Apart from that P.W. 8 Sri Narayan is an injured witness who sustained injuries in this incident. The presence of injuries on his person lends assurance about his presence on the site when the incident is alleged to have taken place. P.W. 6 Hazari is a Mali by caste It is he who took the injured persons in bullock cart to the Government Dispensary, Bonli and lodged the F. 1. R. Ex. P. 21. In F.I.R. Ex. P. 21, he has alleged that he had seen the entire incident. 13. It is true that in the F.I.R. Ex. P. 21, the fact that P.W. 7 Girdhari and P.W. 11 Laddu were coming on a bicycle from Bonli on way to their village Didwari has not been mentioned. But Ex. P. 21 has been scribed by P.W. 7 Girdhari. Girdhari was examined by police during investigation on 29-5-85 i.e. to say on the next day of incident. These facts taken together show that P.W. 7 Girdhari has not been falsely introduced as an ocular witness of the incident. 14. P.W. 1 Mozi Ram has of course not lent support to the prosecution and refused that he had seen the incident. The incident has admittedly taken place in his field even according to him. He admitted that at about 5.30 P.M. on the day of the incident, when he reached his well, he found Kishtoora lying dead and Kalyan and Sri Narayan lying injured. The incident has admittedly taken place in his field even according to him. He admitted that at about 5.30 P.M. on the day of the incident, when he reached his well, he found Kishtoora lying dead and Kalyan and Sri Narayan lying injured. They had multiple wounds and blood was oozing out from them. Thus there remains no doubt that the incident had taken place in his field. His name has been mentioned in the F.I.R. Ex. P. 21 as the person who had witnessed the incident. He of course adopted a hostile attitude. But his hostility does not detract from the evidentiary value to be attached to the direct testimony of P.W. 6 Hazari, P.W. 8 Sri Narayan, P.W. 7 Girdhari and P.W. 11 Laddu. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants took us through the evidence of the eye witnesses supporting the prosecution and urged that their evidence was discrepant, indiscreet and full of contradictions as to who out of-the appellants inflicted the which particular injury to the deceased victims or P.W. 8 Sri Narayan. We have examined the contention and find not much substance in it. In a melee where many persons are armed with lethal weapons and freely weild them in striking blows, it is difficult for anybody to precisely remember as to who caused which injury to the victims. Discrepancies on such description of the infliction of blows are bound to occur when different persons described the incident. Such discrepancies are immaterial and do not destroy the main substratum of what they disposed. The minor discrepancies in the evidence of the four eye witnesses Hazari, Sri Narain, Girdhari and Laddu is there relating to the infliction of blows but we are not inclined to dismiss or discard their testimony in toto on account of the trivial discrepancies. There is unanimity in the four eye witnesses as regards as to who of the appellants had which weapon. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants after taking us through the entire evidence of the four eye witnesses contended that no overt act of beating or otherwise has been assigned to the accused Satya Narayan, Sheoji and Kana by the four eye witnesses supporting the prosecution. These witnesses have merely stated the presence of these three appellants on the site but their mere presence on the spot is not sufficient to make them members of the unlawful assembly. 17. These witnesses have merely stated the presence of these three appellants on the site but their mere presence on the spot is not sufficient to make them members of the unlawful assembly. 17. It was further argued that according to the four eye witnesses, accused Ramji Lal struck a blow on the left foot of Kishtoora by an axe but no injury was found on the left foot of Kishtoora caused by a sharp weapon like axe. Against accused Nathu, there is omnibus statement that he took part in lending blows to the victims.It was argued that accused Ramji Lal's father Ram Narayan and brother Girraj have been cited as prosecution witnesses in the challan Ex. P. 37 filed in March, 1985 against the two deceased victims and 14 others. Accused Nathu is the real nephew of accused Ramji Lal, Ramji Lal and Nathu have been, therefore, falsely involved. 18. The arguments advanced are not ineffective, they have much substance. We have carefully gone through the evidence of the four eye witnesses and find that none of them has stated anything incriminating against the appellants Satya, Narayan, Sheoji and Kana. The eye witnesses have not stated that these three appellants caused injury to any of the victims, or took part in lending blows. They assigned no overt act to them. According to the eye witnesses accused Ramji Lal had an axe with which he struck blows on the left foot of P. W 8 Sri Narayan. But that is not borne out or supported by the medical evidence. Injury report Ex. P. 9 of P. W. 8 Sri Narayan does not show that any injury on his left foot was inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon. Therefore, the role assigned to accused Ramji Lal by the eye witnesses does not stand proved. As against the appellant Nathu there is omni-bus evidence of the eye witnesses that he also struck blows to P.W. 8 Sri Narayan by a Lathi. The only evidence on this point is that of P.W. 8 Sri Narayan. No other eye witness has stated any thing against Nathu. 19. Admittedly appellant Ramji Lal's father Ram Narayan and brother Girraj have been cited as prosecution witnesses in the challan Ex. P. 37 filed against the two deceased victims and 14 others in March, 1985 i.e. to say nearly two months before this incident. 20. No other eye witness has stated any thing against Nathu. 19. Admittedly appellant Ramji Lal's father Ram Narayan and brother Girraj have been cited as prosecution witnesses in the challan Ex. P. 37 filed against the two deceased victims and 14 others in March, 1985 i.e. to say nearly two months before this incident. 20. In view of the aforesaid evidence and material it can be safely said that the five appellants Satya Narayan, Sheoji, Kana, Ramji lal and Girraj did not inflict any blow to the deceased victims or to the injured victim Sri Narayan P.W. 8 and did not participate in the violence. Utmost what stands proved against them is that they were present at the scene of incident. It was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that even their mere presence is sufficient to make them members of the unlawful assembly as their presence cannot be said to be innocent. 21. The pertinent question which arises for our deliberations is whether the mere presence of these five appellants Satya Narayan, Sheoji, Kana, Ramji Lal and Nathu at the scene of the incident is sufficient to make them members of an unlawful assembly. 22. Now the mere presence of persons in or near the unlawful assembly is not sufficient to show that they are also members of the assembly. It must be proved that they also shared the common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141 IPC. It is a question of fact in each case as to whether a person happens to be innocently present at the place of occurrence or was actually a member of the unlawful assembly. It is incumbent on the prosecution to show that the persons present in or near the assembly were aware of the common object and shared that common object. Unless the sharing of the common object is established, one cannot be taken to be,a member of an unlawful assembly. It is necessary that the persons should not only he aware of the common object but should also concur in it. 23. Unless the sharing of the common object is established, one cannot be taken to be,a member of an unlawful assembly. It is necessary that the persons should not only he aware of the common object but should also concur in it. 23. In Baladin v. State of Uttar Pradesh (A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 181) it was held that the mere presence in an assembly does not make a person a member of an unlawful assembly unless it is shown that he had done something or omitted to do something which would make him a member of an unlawful assembly. Baladin's case was later-on explained and distinguished in A .I.R. 1965 S. C. 202. It was again restated in A.I.R. 1971 S. C. 2381 that the mere presence of persons in or near the assembly is not sufficient to show that they were also members of the assembly. It must be proved that those persons also shared one of the common objects enumerated in section 141 I.P.C. 24. In our view it is not at all necessary that the accused should be guilty of any overt act before he is held a member of an unlawful assembly. It is sufficient if it is shown that as a participant of the unlawful assembly, he was sharing the common object of the same. The concurrence of a person in the common object is a sine quo non' an indispensable condition to make him a member of an unlawful assembly. If the concurrence or sharing is not there, he cannot be taken to be a member of such an assembly. It is a question of fact in each case whether one shared or concurred in the common object. This occurrence and sharing is generally inferred from his actions and the surrounding circumstances. 25. In the case in our hand, according to the eye witnesses P. W. 6 Hazari, P. W. 7 Girdhari, P. W. 8 Sri Narayan and P. W. 11 Laddu. accused Har Narayan gave a call to finish Kalyan and Kishtoora. But these five appellants Satya Narain, Sheoji, Kana, Ramjilal and Nathu did not respond the call and did not commit violence against Kalyan, Kishtoora or Sri Narayan. accused Har Narayan gave a call to finish Kalyan and Kishtoora. But these five appellants Satya Narain, Sheoji, Kana, Ramjilal and Nathu did not respond the call and did not commit violence against Kalyan, Kishtoora or Sri Narayan. The evidence of the eye witnesses does not suggest that these five appellants, directly or indirectly, by their acts or omissions, gestures, signals or otherwise encouraged or instigated, other accused persons to commit the murder of the victims or to belabour Sri Narayan P. W. 8. There is in fact no material on record to suggest that these five appellants had concurred or shared in the common object of the other members of the unlawful assembly for killing the victims or making an assault on Sri Narayan. In our considered opinion, it would be hazardous and unsafe to treat these five appellants as members of the unlawful assembly. Their mere presence in the circumstances of the case is not sufficient to permit us to treat them the members of that unlawful assembly. Their convictions are not justified. 26. It was next argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the finding of the court below that the common object of the unlawful assembly constituted by the remaining 6 appellants Har Narayan, Ram Narayan, Ramlal, Kishore, Hazari and Badri was to commit the murder of Kishtoora and Kalyan. It was argued that from the circumstances what can be safely inferred is that the common object of the members of the unlawful assembly was only to give a severe beating to the victims and nothing more. It was further argued that accused Har Narayan struck a blow on the head of Kalyan which caused his death. This injury inflicted by Har Narayan on the head of Kalyan was found by Dr. Jain to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The prosecution has failed to show as to who out of the appellants was the author of the fatal injury No. 9 of Kishtoora. In these circumstances it is only the accused Har Narayan who can be convicted under section 302 I.P.C. The conviction of the other appellants with the aid of section 149 I.P.C. would not be free from risk. 27. Now, according to all the four eye witnesses P. W. 6 Hazari, P. W. 7 Girdhari. In these circumstances it is only the accused Har Narayan who can be convicted under section 302 I.P.C. The conviction of the other appellants with the aid of section 149 I.P.C. would not be free from risk. 27. Now, according to all the four eye witnesses P. W. 6 Hazari, P. W. 7 Girdhari. P. W 8 Sri Narain and P. W. 11 Laddu, it was accused Har Narayan who struck a blow with the sharp side of his axe on the head of Kalyan. According to Dr. Jain P. W. 4, this injury caused his death and it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. We have, therefore, no difficulty in maintaining the conviction of accused Har Narayan under section 302 I.P.C. The clinching issue before us is whether the common object of the unlawful assembly constituted by the six appellants named above was to commit the murder of Kalyan and Kishtoora and whether their murders were committed in prosecution of that common object. 28. Direct evidence as to the formation of the common object is seldomly available. Generally, the existence of the common object is gathered from the acts committed and the available circumstances on the record. The object has generally to be gathered from the acts which the persons commit and the result therefrom. 29. Here in the instant case in our hand, admittedly there were bitter relations between the deceased victims and these six appellants. Litigation, civil, criminal etc. was going on between them. The two deceased victims were facing trial in the criminal cases for making murderous assault on some of these six appellants. The appellants thus had a strong motive and animus against the deceased victims. The accused hidden themselves and suddenly emerged out on seeing their prey and made a joint and concerted attack on them with deadly weapons like axes, Jelly and lathies. When the victims tried to run away for safety, they were chased and over-powered and beaten to death. 30. Now when there is a strong motive, the culprits who are more than in number lie in ambush in a 'Goni, each of them is armed with lethal weapons like axe, Jelly or lathi, suddenly emerge out on seeing their targets, pounce over them and beat them to the death, no common object other than causing the murder can be inferred. In the context of the aforesaid circumstances, it would be a perfectly legitimate inference that the culprits framed an unlawful assembly with the common object of finishing their targets for ever. If the murder was in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly all the members will be guilty for the murder under section 302 read with section 149 IPC It is then immaterial as to which member of the unlawful assembly caused fatal injury to the deceased victim. 31. The convictions of the remaining six appellants (1) Har Narayan (2) Ram Narayan (3) Ram Lal (4) Kishore (5) Hazari and (6) Badri for the offences they were convicted are proper and justified and no interference is required. 32. In the result: (1) The appeals of five accused (1) Satya Narayan (2) Sheoji (3) Kana (4) Ramjilal son of Ram Narayan and (5) Nathu are allowed. Their convictions under sections 148, 302/149, 323/149, 324/149 and 323 together with the sentences awarded to them thereunder are set aside. They are acquitted of the offences they were convicted by the court below. Accused Ramji Lal and Nathu are already on bail and they need not surrender. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Accused Satya Narayan, Sheoji and Kana are in jail and they shall be forthwith set at liberty if not required in any other case. (2) The appeals of remaining six accused (1) Har Narayan(2) Ram Narayan (3) Ramlal son of Jansi (4) Kishore (5) Hazari and (6) Badri are dismissed. Their convictions for the s they were convicted and the sentences awarded to them thereunder are maintained. 33. The appeals shall stand accordingly disposed of.Appeals of Five Accused allowed, Appeals of Remained Six Accused Dismissed. *******